Secret Service Admits Bypassing Consent For Tracking Citizens Movements

The Secret Service’s Location Data Scandal Exposed: Agency Admits Lacking Transparency in Tracking Citizens’ Movements

An email obtained by 404 Media reveals that the Secret Service responded to a question from Senator Ron Wyden’s office in 2022, stating it had not taken any steps to verify the consent of consumers who sold their location data to Babel Street, the company behind the surveillance tool called Locate X.

The agency claimed that monitoring phone movements without a warrant was possible because individuals allegedly agreed to the terms of services of ordinary apps. However, this contradicts claims made by the agency that obtaining consent was necessary for accessing sensitive location data.

This news comes as a result of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) investigation into Venntel, the company that provided the underlying dataset for Locate X. The FTC banned Venntel from selling sensitive location data, alleging it did not obtain consent in multiple cases. A recent oversight body report for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Secret Service broke the law while using commercially purchased location data.

The email highlights a lack of transparency on the part of the Secret Service, which stated it did not obtain a warrant before using Locate X to assist in developing leads and intelligence. The tool has been used in demonstration videos to track mobile devices that visited specific locations, including an abortion clinic that crossed state lines.

Senator Ron Wyden described the claim that individuals give up their privacy rights by downloading apps as “outrageous.” He noted that even as far back as 2022, the Secret Service told his office it had taken no action to verify the consent of Americans for their location data to be sold to government agencies.

The agency maintains its use of location data is in accordance with applicable laws and government policies. However, this latest development raises serious questions about the agency’s handling of sensitive information, sparking widespread outrage among lawmakers and civil rights advocates.